Spacetime as a superfluid:

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Many different kinds of superfluids have been observed in nature (e.g. liquid helium, in ultracold quantum gases and in superconductors), and the theoretical literature about superfluids is vast.

This is about space-time. There is no evidence that space-time is a superfluid. That is my point. That is why the equation is of no real value in this context.

Originally posted by Soothfast
Aww…dude…

Here, you need to put on this white, cone-shaped hat and go stand in the corner.

Funny how so many on here insist what it isn't but cannot explain what it is and how the idea came about. I'm not impressed.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Funny how so many on here insist what it isn't but cannot explain what it is and how the idea came about. I'm not impressed.

Have you read the book "The Trouble With Physics" by Lee Smolin? I'm almost finished with it myself.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Funny how so many on here insist what it isn't but cannot explain what it is and how the idea came about. I'm not impressed.

There is nothing funny about that at all. It is quite common to rationally know what something isn't without having complete understanding of what it is. I also don't have complete understanding of what tensors are ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor ) but I still rationally know it isn't a tool for analyzing how lions hunt in packs. You insisting that super fluid is aether is almost as irrational as you insisting that tensors is a tool for analyzing how lions hunt in packs because, in either case, you don't what it is you are talking about.


How can you be so sure of what super fluid IS? You haven't demonstrated any understanding of it! You clearly have far from complete understanding of what it is and far less understanding of the physicists that have studied it and who understand the meaning of its equations. So, I ask you again, ARE you a physicist? If no, then tell us why we should take your word for it that you know what it is and not the word of the physicists here that say you are wrong about what you say it is?

Originally posted by Soothfast
Have you read the book "The Trouble With Physics" by Lee Smolin? I'm almost finished with it myself.

Yes, I have. It is a very good book. I particularly liked the part where Smolin explains "Group think". I believe Humy is stuck in a group think mentality. He should read the book too.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
This is about space-time. There is no evidence that space-time is a superfluid. That is my point. That is why the equation is of no real value in this context.

I don't know enough about this theory to comment, but I'm surprised you feel that you do.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I don't know enough about this theory to comment, but I'm surprised you feel that you do.

I have studied aether theory in the past because I see the value of de Broglie's work and found it compelling at some point. I'm very sure that superfluid theory is derived from aether theory even if you are not. I'm sure the person that put this theory out will deny it though. Unlike the aether, superfluid conveniently bypasses the Michelson-Morley Experiment so that it is not relevant to superfluid. Other than that, the concept is the same. It is a cheap loophole devised by someone who is convinced there is something in the vacuum of space that is waving but needs to distance himself from the stigma of aether theory to get anywhere with it.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
I have studied aether theory in the past because I see the value of de Broglie's work and found it compelling at some point. I'm very sure that superfluid theory is derived from aether theory even if you are not. I'm sure the person that put this theory out will deny it though. Unlike the aether, superfluid conveniently bypasses the Michelson-Morley Expe ...[text shortened]... s waving but needs to distance himself from the stigma of aether theory to get anywhere with it.

I have studied aether theory in the past

-but not super fluid I take it.
In other words, you cannot know what you are talking about here.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
I have studied aether theory in the past because I see the value of de Broglie's work and found it compelling at some point. I'm very sure that superfluid theory is derived from aether theory even if you are not. I'm sure the person that put this theory out will deny it though. Unlike the aether, superfluid conveniently bypasses the Michelson-Morley Expe ...[text shortened]... s waving but needs to distance himself from the stigma of aether theory to get anywhere with it.

And by 'studied' you mean...

Originally posted by humy

I have studied aether theory in the past

-but not super fluid I take it.
In other words, you cannot know what you are talking about here.

You keep saying that but cannot show you are right. Prove it.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You keep saying that but cannot show you are right. Prove it.

what, it is I that needs to prove that you know what you are talking about like you claim?
Err, nope, it is obviously not. It is you.
I ask you again, are you a physicist? YES OR NO?

It is YOU that says super fluid is aether despite having no university qualifications in the relevant physics and despite those that have such qualifications all saying you are wrong. So it is YOU that must prove that you know what you are talking about if we are to take you seriously. So, what is your proof? can you DEMONSTRATE that super fluid is aether ( let alone you know all about super fluid ) by explaining exactly what it is complete, of course, with the equations for it and an explanation of the physical meaning of each equation? Because, until if or when you can do that, none of us will be convinced by your claims of superior insight and rightly so.

Actually, I CAN prove you don't know what you are talking about, simply by pointing out that you will not DEMONSTRATE that super fluid is aether (and analogies and figure-of-speak is no such demonstration ) let alone you know all about super fluid ( merely coping and pasting from a relevant web link doesn't show you understand it -you need to explain it convincingly in your own words ) -why would you refuse if you know all about it?

You can end this debate right now if your claim is true; just show as the actual formal equation, NOT your mere hearsay, that super fluid is aether and explain HOW it shows the two equate.....
You MUST be able to do it if you are right! WHY not? If you don't even have the equation for the relevant physics, you cannot possibly have complete or near complete knowledge of the relevant physics. So what is the hold up here? WHY don't you tell us this RIGHT NOW?

Originally posted by humy
what, it is I that needs to prove that you know what you are talking about like you claim?
Err, nope, it is obviously not. It is you.
I ask you again, are you a physicist? YES OR NO?

It is YOU that says super fluid is aether despite having no university qualifications in the relevant physics and despite those that have such qualifications all saying you ...[text shortened]... edge of the relevant physics. So what is the hold up here? WHY don't you tell us this RIGHT NOW?

http://vixra.org/pdf/1306.0217v1.pdf

Originally posted by Metal Brain
http://vixra.org/pdf/1306.0217v1.pdf

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/analogy

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/metaphor

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/simile

Originally posted by humy
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/analogy

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/metaphor

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/simile

It is not just a comparison and you know it. Superfluid is derived from aether theory just as I said. You are just being stubborn and can't admit you are wrong.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
It is not just a comparison and you know it. Superfluid is derived from aether theory just as I said. You are just being stubborn and can't admit you are wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories

"...The assorted aether theories embody the various conceptions of this "medium" and "substance". This early modern aether has little in common with the aether of classical elements from which the name was borrowed. ..."

THAT is the reason why I refer to you to the words "analogy" and "metaphor"!

OK;

1, Do you understand the words "little in common with" and "the name was borrowed" in the above and what they imply there?

2, Do you claim to know more about the physics that the physicists say about the above? -if so, SHOW your credentials on this and PROVE that you know better than they....